4.6 Article

Export Diversification and Ecological Footprint: A Comparative Study on EKC Theory among Korea, Japan, and China

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su10103657

关键词

Environmental Kuznets Curve; ecological footprint; Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI); export product diversification; export market diversification; error correction model (ECM)

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis by adopting a country's ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation in three East Asian countries: Japan, Korea, and China. During the development process, countries intend to balance between stabilizing export demand and maintaining sustainable economic improvement in the context of deteriorating global warming and climate change. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (henceforth, EKC) was originally developed to estimate the correlation between environment condition and economic development. In this paper, we started from the EKC model and adopted an Error Correction Methodology (henceforth, ECM) to estimate the EKC relationships in Japan, Korea (two developed countries), and China (a developing country) over the period of 1990 to 2013. Besides this, instead of only using Gross Domestic Product (henceforth, GDP), two subdivisions of trade diversification-export product diversification and export market diversification-are introduced as proxy variables for economic development in rectification of the EKC. The results demonstrate that both Korea and Japan satisfy the EKC theory by demonstrating an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic development and ecological footprint, while analysis based on data from China does not display the same tendency. For both export product diversification and market diversification, the more diversified the country's export is, the bigger its ecological footprint. The policy implications of this econometric outcome are also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据